« Quick! What's three times bigger than TARP? | davidfarrar's Blog | House Resolution 615 Enrolls Congress into ObamaCare »
Bill Moyers: Don't Compromise on ObamaCare
The basic disconnect between liberals and conservatives over Obamacare can be heard in Bill's statement: Click here to see video.
"...Much better for Barack Obama to go back to this public insurance for everybody - universal health care run by the government with tough cost controls to which everybody can join - employees and individuals, and which puts the care of the patient back in the hands of doctors." "...back in the hands of doctors"? Who is he kidding? Nothing of the kind would happen under ObamaCare. It would be placed in the hands of the government bureaucrat.
ex animo
Advertisement
A question. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Moyers?
August 31, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think Bill is fundamentally wrong when he states, "...universal health care run by the government...will puts the care of the patient back in the hands of doctors."
ex animo
davidfarrar
August 31, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops the diary content below the video did not show when I posted. So my question is answered. However what's missing is any facts supporting your opinion. Nor do you discuss how current private insurance already stands in the way of many of the decisions you and your doctor should make together.
David I am willing to listen to a valid argument against healthcare reform, unfortunately, though not surprising, yours isn't one.
August 31, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, even if I accept the premis that patient care would be "put in the hands of the government bureaucrat" (which I don't), I'd much rather have my case in the hands of someone with no financial interest in the direction my care takes than the current mechanism where my care is in the hands of an insurance company bureaucrat who is motivated to provide as little care as possible.
August 31, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but when the insurance company fails to live up to its contract, you can sue and the government can regulate. Not true when the government becomes the insurance company. Thank about it.
There's a reason why you can't sue the government under ObamaCare.
ex animo
davidfarrar
August 31, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please point me to anything in any of the bills out there that states should you get denied care you have no recourse. Next what are the three main reasons insurance companies deny care? One, pre -existing condition, two,reached your cap and three, insurance company does not agree with your doctor's course of action. The first two are taken care of in both private and public option since pre-existing condition will no longer exist as a reason to deny and life time caps have been removed. As to the third, yes you have a right to sue an insurance company. Probably you will be dead before it ever gets a hearing. Next, have you ever tried to sue someone that has unlimited resources to defend themselves? Good luck. The fact that you may have the right does not mean you have the ability or where with all to exercise that right.
August 31, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now allowing patients to sue Obamacare should it not live up to its contract would be a step in the right direction, but so far I haven't seen that in any health care bill.
ex animo
davidfarrar
August 31, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silly David,
Do you understand that right now people don't get the care they need because of the profit making insurance companies standing between people and their doctors?
Do you recognize that people 'die' every year due to decisions made by insurance companies that are based on their desire to make the greatest profits possible and not based on the life and well being of their patients?
Do you recognize that healthcare costs are so out of control that if nothing is done the poor and shrinking middle class will receive less and less health care and there will more and more deaths based on the decisions of private health insurance companies?
The thing to be afraid of is leaving things the way they are. The situation as it is 'right now' is horrifying and unsustainable. We must take the profits out of health care. Most of the more 'grown up' nations have already made this conclusion in the best interest of their citizens.
And since you chose to misquote Moyers. Here is a verbatim of the 'clip', so there's some missing context, that you linked to taking us to what is in my opinion and very ignorant site:
"And I would rather see Barack Obama go down fighting for vigorous, strong, principled, proven public insurance, than to lose with a bill - look, BusinessWeek had a cover story last week, ‘The Insurers are Winning’ everybody knows that the whitehouse has already made a deal with the drug industry promising not to import cheaper drugs from Canada and Europe, promising not to use the government to negotiate for lower prices. That deals been cut.
Much better that Barack Obama go back to this public insurance for everybody, universal health care run by the government with tough cost controls to which everybody can join, employees and individuals and which puts the care of the patient back in the hands of the doctor…. And lose.
If he were to do that and lose this fight this fall, I guarantee you it would reinvigorate the party that we all know is suffering right now for not being sure who it is or who it’s for."
August 31, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, if you don't like the way health care insurance companies operate, change the law, that is the proper role of government. If you want to lower the cost of health care, create a public option, but don't dis-empower the patient in the process. To judge any health care plan, always look at the patent's recourse when the system fails, not to its promises.
Any public option should have an independent investigative arm as well as full transparency to provide patients with the record in order to sue either the public or private provider.
ex animo
davidfarrar
August 31, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with you David that the best way to judge a health care plan is to look at 'recourse'. What its suggests to me is that you are operating out of a fear first mentality.
What I would look at is the overall cost and overall health and well being of the people the plan serves. The 'value' received.
When you buy a car is the most important factor in your decision that you have it in writing somewhere that you can sue them if something is wrong with your car? Seriously, the MOST important thing?
You really are being disingenuous in my perception.
I don't know who does your thinking for you, but I would like to assume these are not your own thoughts and that at any moment you could actually analyze what you are stating(or copying/linking from right-wing distortion factories) and shift gears.
August 31, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point me to something, anything that says the public option dis-empowers the patient. Something besides your opinion.
August 31, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I have opened a pdf file on H.R. 3200 and asked it to find the words: "recourse", "sue", and "patient's rights". None are contained within the language of H.R. 3200.
You try it, and see if you get anything different.
Or perhaps you can just show me where the patient's rights are discussed in H.R. 3200?
ex animo
davidfarrar
August 31, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok here's what I did. I called my Senator and asked if someone who was insured under the public option, and was denied care for what ever reason, would they have the ability to challenge and if so where was this section in either the H.E.L.P bill or HR 3200? You are right specific redress phrasing is not in either bill. However there will be clear language in the rules and regs should the public option pass for whom ever manages the Public option to enable and ensure patient recourse.
Now all that said should this language not appear then that might be a strong reason not to get insured by the public option and stay with your private insurer.
August 31, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bow to your candor, jsfox.
So now we are being asked to support a bill that will create adequate patient protection after the fact, not before.
No thank you. I will support health care reform when it puts the patient's needs first, not afterwords.
ex animo
davidfarrar
August 31, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the redress for a government patient who has the wrong leg amputated due to the incompetence of a surgeon being paid under ObamaCare will be what?
ex animo
davidfarrar
August 31, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
David please assure me you are not this dense. What redress do you have now? You sue the doctor, not the insurer. This doesn't change. Why would you sue the insurance company for a doctors mistake? And yet the Republicans are screaming tort reform in order to limit said redress. Next neither bill puts doctors on the government payroll so your argument is completely without merit.
Next if you go back to Medicare. The full rules, guidelines etc were not written into the original bill. They came after the legislation was passed into law and the system was set up. I should have made that clear because I asked this question, as well.
Next both bills put the patients needs as they stand now far ahead of what your insurance company presently does by the mere fact that pre existing conditions and life time caps are removed. Medical malpractice is still on the doctor not your insurer.
August 31, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heads up . . . Foxy
HR 3200 has nothing to do with tort case law.
Our resident strawman builder FarOut dumped this:
This current HR 3200 bill deals with insurance reform.
What seems to be missing in the illogical scenario and strawman that FarOut has presented is the fact that the "public option" insurance program is NOT the "care provider." That would be, say in the case of a surgical procedure gone wrong, either the hospital, the attending physician, the surgeon, and or any other attending staff who may have screwed up.
Under that scenario neither the federal government in the case of the "public option," nor any other private insurance plan provider within the scope of the "Exchange" would be liable for damages by those entities outlined in the previous paragraph.
Individual state statutes for tort liability cannot be superseded by federal law. And I've never heard of a case were an insurance plan provider was held liable for the misdeeds or actions of a doctor or a care provider.
Only in the case where an insurance plan provider denied a procedure have court cases been brought to be heard. And in the case of HR 3200 there are protections provided in the current mark-up that deals with those scenarios relating to both the "public option" and private plans provided through the "Exchange." Those are outlined under the follow section of the act:
So the whole scenario that FarOut has concocted is moot and a totally illogical scenario not based on reality.
Case in point is an individual who either currently is covered by Medicaid or Medicare. If that individual deems they have a probable cause for a tort liability claim against a doctor or service provider then the individual state statutes are enforceable and cannot be superseded, nor over ridden by federal law.
So it's been exciting watching this FarOut fella run everyone down the rabbit hole.
Check my avatar!
~OGD~
September 1, 2009 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's as far as the QHBP standards are concerned. One would expect private health insurance companies to have such a redress procedure, which is exactly my point. We have just established the fact that no present public health care bill has such a clause in it.
So what ObamaCare is saying is, "here, private health care insurance companies, if you want to participate in the program you have to have a "patient redress" clause in it", but to date there is no such clause in the "public option" benefit plan.
Let's make sure there is one before Congress votes on any health care plan.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 1, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reply . . .
The reply debunking FarOut's pretzel comment above may be found below . . .
~OGD~
September 2, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are right...perhaps I got ahead of myself. You see, I can still remember just how powerless mere patients were when the Public Health system was around. Once you put patient rights second, the inevitable power of the state will dominant the decision-making process. We can use your own examples to see what this kind of decision-making priority leads too when individuals are forced to move against the state to redress the system's shortcomings.
Oh, and by the way, when you sue the doctor, you are suing against the limited amount of his health insurance. The state medical boards will proceed against the doctor.
But I'll be the first to admit patients don't have enough power in either system, public or private. It just seems to me we ought to empower the patients first, if any real health care reform is going to take place. I support strong patient empowerment within the private health care insurance industry as well as the same, if not more, patient empowerment when it comes to any and all public health care options. Unless we make both system equal, both systems operating on the same level playing field, all we will be doing is exchanging one structural monopoly for another, leaving the power of the consumer weaker in the end, as in any monopoly.
ex animo
davidfarrar
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 1, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone is as dense as lead . . .
From that statement above (found here upthread) it is clear that FarOut has not even bothered to have read the actual bill, no matter what FarOut has said previously.
The same laws will apply to the "public health plan option" as those for the "private insurance providers" that offer plans in the Exchange.
And again, both the private insurance providers and that offered by the "public health plan option" are required to operate under the same "protections and standards.
Now under TITLE III--SHARED RESPONSIBILITY the bill clearly denotes that the "public health insurance option" is a "QHBP OFFERING ENTITY."
So -- In the case of HR 3200 there are protections, grievances processes, and "...redress procedures" provided in the current mark-up that deals with FarOut's strawman scenarios relating to both the "public option" and private plans provided through the "Exchange." Those are outlined under the follow section of the act:
To further expand and enlighten those who bother coming into this blog at this late date, I provide you with the wording to the above Sec. 132.In conclusion : The whole scenario that this FarOut clown has concocted is moot and a totally illogical scenario not based on reality.
It's fun pulling rabbits out of the hat, but more fun pulling them out of their rabbit hole that they attempt to lead others down into.
~OGD~
September 2, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink